"Cheap" camera recommendations

I've seen so many people asking for camera recommendations under $200-$300, I thought I'd start a bit of a thread.

Some initial thoughts:

Much like buying a car, a used Mercedes may be a better car than a new Nissan. Often, newer models have nothing more than incremental improvements over older models, and aren't worth paying "new" premium pricing.

Until about 2-3 years ago, there was a massive gap in performance between dSLR and point and shoot, with mirrorless falling in between. Today, mirrorless is just as good (or perhaps even better than) as dSLR in many cases. And there is a new market of "enthusiast" point & shoot cameras, that start to approach low level dSLR performance.

For those that want to spend under $200, and value simplicity above all.... A *good* smart phone may be your best choice. The drawbacks are lack of optical zoom and a weaker flash. But you then get a long list of advantages over cheap new P&S cameras -- wifi, touch screen, in camera editing, comparable image quality, easy photo sharing and editing, etc, etc.

Most of my recommendations do NOT have long zoom. In budget bridge cameras, the camera makers make big sacrifices to image quality, in order to put a big zoom in a reasonable size and reasonable price. I don't believe the trade off is worthwhile in most cases. Because how often do you really need to zoom in on someone's mailbox from 500 yards away.

But I will start with the only super zoom that can make my list of budget recommendations:

The Panasonic FZ200. http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FZ200-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B008MB6ZX0/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1435069602&sr=1-1&keywords=Panasonic+FZ200

$400 new, but under $300 used. It has a large zoom range of 25-600. It has the dreaded "small sensor" you find in most bridge cameras. But it has a faster lens -- 2.8 aperture. That means, you can put less pressure on the lens, and walk away with higher shutter speeds and better image quality in most cases. If I really felt I completely needed a super zoom for under $300, this would be the only camera on my list, that I can think of.

Other P&S cameras:

The Sony RX100. One could argue it was the first of the new generation of "enthusiast" point & shoot cameras. The fourth edition has just been released, but the first edition is still a darn good camera. Fast lens (when zoomed out to wide angle) and a mid-sized sensor. This camera can match most kit dSLR packages. It can still be found new for $350 to $400 and used for under $300.

http://www.amazon.com/DSC-RX100-Sensor-Digital-Pixi-Basic-Accessory/dp/B00OZV9268/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1435070316&sr=1-7&keywords=Sony+RX100

Canon S120: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Optical-Full-HD/dp/B00EFILNV8/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1435070407&sr=1-1&keywords=Canon+S120

$350 new, can be found used for under $300. Sensor isn't quite as big as the RX100, but slightly bigger than most P&S. A well featured camera, relatively good lens.

Nikon P7700: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0090SLE30/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

Also under $300 used. Same size sensor as the Canon S120, relatively fast lens, with a bit more range to it. It has the full zoom range most people would need.

Moving on, the best value you may find is buying a used mirrorless or dSLR. As I said, in my mind, point and shoot cameras only started offering really good cameras in the last 2-3 years or so. On the other hand, a 3-5 year old dSLR that sold for $1000 when new, may be really cheap now.... and still better than new P&S cameras on the market.

These are mostly body only prices. You will need to add lenses... which could tack on anything from $50 to $300 or more. (could be thousands of dollars more, but that won't be necessary).

Just some examples:

Under $200, the Canon Rebel T3:

https://www.keh.com/352957/canon-rebel-t3-black-digital-camera-body-12-2-m-p

It was released in 2011... Only 4 years old. It was a basic entry level dSLR. But it will beat just about any P&S on the market today. Can add a stabilized basic kit zoom for about $70. Can add a basic kit stabilized telephoto zoom for another $100 used, if you really need telephoto.

Sony A35, $200 used:

https://www.keh.com/352897/sony-slt-a35-digital-camera-body-16-2-m-p

I was a long-time Sony/Minolta shooter. The beauty of this camera is that it has in-camera stabilization. That means, go on eBay, but 25 year old Minolta lenses, and they are stabilized on this camera. And many of those old lenses are optically amazing.

Sony A55, $240 used:

https://www.keh.com/345910/sony-slt-a55-digital-camera-body-16-2-m-p

I owned this camera, I loved it. It's a nice step up from the A35 for only $40 more. (It was a couple hundred more when they were both new).

Canon T5, $290 used:

https://www.keh.com/365153/canon-rebel-t5-digital-camera-body-18-m-p

The updated version of the T3, for only $90 more! His resolution, better video.

I'll shift gears and recommend a mirrorless:

I have not personally used the m4:3 system... It uses a sensor a little smaller than most dSLRs, but much bigger than P&S. Olympus and Panasonic have been perfecting the system for a while. There is a nice large lens selection. The camera bodies are well laid out. And typically, the cameras and lens combinations are nice and compact-- not much bigger than P&S cameras.

This model is just over 3 years old.. It was $600 new. Now under $250!

https://www.keh.com/361053/olympus-pen-e-pl5-silver-digital-camera-body-16-m-p

Moving back to traditional dSLR:

Canon and Nikon have been doing dSLRs forever, creating massive lens selections. If you want to ever grow into a true hobbyist photographer, you will be spoiled in lens choices.

The D5100 is 4 years old, it was the "mid level" dSLR... and now can be had used for under $300:

https://www.keh.com/345022/nikon-d5100-digital-camera-body-16-2-m-p

The image quality is basically just as good as new dSLRs. The difference.. most new dSLRs have moved to 20+ megapixels, while the last generation was more likely to use 16 mp. But 16mp is more than enough for 99% of uses. Unless you want to print a wall-sized photo, 16mp is plenty.

Along the same lines as the D5100, I give you the Canon t3i... also for around $300

https://www.keh.com/361927/canon-600d-black-euro-rebel-t3i-digital-camera-body-18-m-p

Moving back to mirrorless... Eventually, Sony and some others decided to start using dSLR-sized sensors in mirrorless cameras. In the last 1-2 years, the speed and performance of these cameras have caught up to dSLRs for the most part. In older models, you may have to deal with slightly slower autofocus. But you can get a smaller and cheaper package.

So take that 16mp sensor from the D5100, with very similar image quality, and you get the Sony Nex 5-N:

https://www.keh.com/353780/sony-nex-5n-silver-digital-camera-body-16-1-m-p

Under $200. You won't get a viewfinder. Autofocus will be a little slower than a dSLR or a current mirrorless. But image quality will match dSLRs. You can also adapt just about any lens ever made if you are willing to use manual focus. The basic kit autofocus lens will cost you between $50 and $150 depending on the version. The kit telephoto zoom can be found for under $200.

Going to the lower level camera, the Nex C3, but with the lens included, you can find the package for under $250:

https://www.keh.com/361525/sony-nex-c3-silver-with-18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6-oss-silver-49-digital-camera-16-m-p

Let's step up a bit..... To the Sony NEX-7. This uses a newer generation 24mp sensor, as found in many current Sony and Nikon dSLRs. It has an improved autofocus system. It has semi-professional features and build quality. It has a high quality electronic viewfinder. This was basically a $1400 camera just 3 years ago!!! Now, around $350 used!

https://www.keh.com/354426/sony-nex-7-black-digital-camera-body-24-3-m-p

The Sony A6000 is $550 new... In some ways, the NEX 7 is still a better camera (In Sony world, "7" is more advanced than "6".. there are rumors of a A7000 to replace the NEX 7, but it hasn't come yet).

Anyway, that wraps up my list. I'm sure others will have other comments and recommendations.

I'd pretty much second what havoc says.

I would throw in the Canon SX50HS as a bridge that I sometimes see under $300. And the Canon g1x as a P&S in the higher price ranges, love that 1" sensor.

I'd also probably steer clear of a dSLR unless you are willing to invest the time to learn how to use it.

I'd like to suggest researching the "release date" or "first sale date" for the camera(s) you're considering. If it's a model/line that seems to get very frequent updates, I'd bet they're small "updates". If it's a line that only gets updates every 2-3 years, I'd suggest to not get a camera that's been on the market more than 4 years for P&S or 3 years for DSLR. The manufacturers really are putting good new features into newer models IMHO.

I'd also probably steer clear of a dSLR unless you are willing to invest the time to learn how to use it.

I concur. I'd probably also go far as to say stay away from a DSLR unless you're willing to invest money in at least a few key accessories within two years of buying it: tripod, mid-model external flash, and at least one "fast prime" lens (likely in the $125-400 range). The base DSLR kit will probably create more frustration than a less-expensive P&S out of the box, so the learning is important.

I concur. I'd probably also go far as to say stay away from a DSLR unless you're willing to invest money in at least a few key accessories within two years of buying it: tripod, mid-model external flash, and at least one "fast prime" lens (likely in the $125-400 range). The base DSLR kit will probably create more frustration than a less-expensive P&S out of the box, so the learning is important.

For the most part, I'll disagree. A tripod and external flash are great-- I own several of each. But they are no more critical with a dslr than with a point and shoot. At least with a dslr, you have the option of adding an external flash if you ever choose to.

Primes are great, and you can always add a 50/1.8 cheaply... But again, it doesn't become a necessity.

The key is -- even without a tripod, external flash or prime lens, a dslr outperforms 95% of point and shoot cameras.

In fact, take a 10 year old $150 dslr, and compare it to a typical brand new $250 point and shoot -- the 10 year old dslr will get significantly better image quality.

Turning to "frustration" and learning curve .... To maximize the potential of any camera, you need to learn it. BUT, auto mode is essentially the same across cameras. Shooting auto in a dslr is no harder than shooting auto in a point and shoot, and will still lead to better results. I'm grouping dslr and mirrorless together for this discussion.

In your other post, you mentioned features added every few years. Partially depends if you prioritize getting good image quality, or features. I haven't seen any critical features really added in several years now. The big change in the last 1-2 years is the addition of wifi. Certainly, not a useless feature but not usually a game changer, especially since the implementation is clunky in most cameras. Other "new" features are even more yawn inducing -- screens that might tilt, built in Instagram filters...

The biggest reason to avoid a dslr is the size and bulk. But aps-c and m4:3 mirrorless cameras are similar in size to point and shoot cameras. At that point, the downside is the "inconvenience" of possibly changing lenses on occasion. Fortunately, we are finally seeing some good p&s cameras, but they are actually more costly than dslrs. That said, a camera like the rx100 actually can match a 7-10 year old dslr.

Something to consider.... I see tripods, lenses and flash mentioned.... what about a second or third battery. How much is it?

The only time you need to worry about extra batteries is when travelling and weddings. Non DSLR batteries are constantly being drained when you have that camera turned on waiting for that whale to pop out in front of you. Those LCD screens love batteries.

Yes, I too like AA batteries and choose to buy the DSLR vertical grips that comes with a AA adapter.

Something to consider.... I see tripods, lenses and flash mentioned.... what about a second or third battery. How much is it?

 

The only time you need to worry about extra batteries is when travelling and weddings. Non DSLR batteries are constantly being drained when you have that camera turned on waiting for that whale to pop out in front of you. Those LCD screens love batteries.

 

Yes, I too like AA batteries and choose to buy the DSLR vertical grips that comes with a AA adapter.

Extra batteries a must.

$20ish for generic upto about $125 brand name.

I have fairly big hands [and most other thngs for that matter] and always get a grip, if there is an option one that takes "AA"s.

Extra batteries a must.

 

$20ish for generic upto about $125 brand name.

 

I have fairly big hands [and most other thngs for that matter] and always get a grip, if there is an option one that takes "AA"s.

If using a mirrorless or P&S sure, but not really needed for a DSLR. I went from Friday to Sunday afternoon and almost 1000 shots and still had juice left on my DSLR battery. I also bring the charger with me. So on a ship there really is no need for an extra battery when using a DSLR.

If using a mirrorless or P&S sure, but not really needed for a DSLR. I went from Friday to Sunday afternoon and almost 1000 shots and still had juice left on my DSLR battery. I also bring the charger with me. So on a ship there really is no need for an extra battery when using a DSLR.

Get the extra battery! (IMHO):D

The entry-level Canon rebels are only CIPA rated for about 450 shots on a battery, which is just about even with most mirrorless cameras. The lower-end Nikons like the D3300 are a bit better at 700-ish which may be enough for a week of shooting sparsely.

I still carry extra batteries when I use the DSLR. Long battery life is one thing but regardless, a mid- to pro-level DSLR with a depleted battery isn't much more than a finely-crafted doorstop. ;)

Dave

If using a mirrorless or P&S sure, but not really needed for a DSLR. I went from Friday to Sunday afternoon and almost 1000 shots and still had juice left on my DSLR battery. I also bring the charger with me. So on a ship there really is no need for an extra battery when using a DSLR.

I get about 650 shots from a fully charged batters on my DSlr and can easily get through 2 batteries in a day, [especially in an interesting Port] let alone if I start using video,

The beauty of being able touse AAs as a back up is if a battery dies, and unfortunately sometimes they do.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/817843-REG/Sony_NEX_7K_B_NEX_7_Digital_Camera.html

Less than 3 years ago, this camera was $1250.. Now, under $500 with lens. It was one of the best mirrorless cameras, semi pro level, 2-3 years ago. It has indeed been surpassed by newer technology. In my mind, the newest APS-C mirrorless cameras are just as good as modern dSLRs, but this camera was still a step below dSLRs in many ways.

Still, at the price, you are getting a very very high quality mirrorless camera, with great image quality, tri nav controls (I know many Sony shooters miss the tri nav system which isn't in the A6000), a very high quality EVF.

I'd probably pay a little more and just get an A6000, but this camera isn't far behind it.

The A6000 vs. NEX-7 decision is indeed a mixed bag. A bag full of good, but mixed. While the images from the A6000 surpass the NEX-7 in low-light situations, a difference really doesn't exist in anything below ISO1000. The Tri-Navi system is offset by the direct access menu of the A6000. It has a virtual horizon level available, a magnesium alloy body and has better weather sealing but the A6000 shoots faster bursts, has DSLR-level focusing and some of the camera apps are really useful.

It was the camera that pushed me over the edge to using mirrorless primarily and discontinue new lens purchases for the A-mount DSLR. The generational improvements in the A6000 are significant but a NEX-7 for under $500 with a kit lens, it is a screaming bargain for a solid, high performing camera.

Dave